Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> Mon, 03 December 2007 11:21 UTC
Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz9MD-0004yi-Qm; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:21:01 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz9MB-0004uH-HZ; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:20:59 -0500
Received: from tarsus.bollow.ch ([82.195.230.222]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz9MB-0006m2-6I; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:20:59 -0500
Received: from tarsus.bollow.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA462B28055; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:03:44 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: tarsus.bollow.ch from=nb@bollow.ch; domainkey=neutral (no signature; no policy for bollow.ch)
Received: from quill.bollow.ch (204-57.203-62.cust.bluewin.ch [62.203.57.204]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:03:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by quill.bollow.ch (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23F8C2202B6; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:24:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
Organization: Bollow Software Economics Research
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615570462D9@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> (pbaker@verisign.com)
References: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615570462D9@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-Id: <20071203112445.23F8C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:24:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> wrote: > Only issue I would raise here is don't expire the ID if this situation > arises... > > If there is an IESG action and an ID folk can read that is going to work > for most people. > > Don't publish the rfc before the appeals counter expires, there lies all > sorts of bad stuff and confusion. +1 Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than… IETF Chair
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Wassim Haddad
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Ted Hardie
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Cullen Jennings
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tim Polk
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Dave Crocker
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Lixia Zhang
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- OOXML (was Re: Should the RFC Editor...) Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Daniel Brown
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Loa Andersson
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … JP Vasseur
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley